The main legal point established in the judgment is the use of the structured formula provided in the Motor Vehicles Act as a guide for calculating just compensation in cases of fatal accidents, taking into consideration the emotional impact of the loss of a family member.

1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants as well as respondent no. 2 jointly request to dispose of this appeal finally at this stage itself. Vide order dated 2,5.2007, notices were issued upon the respondents to show cause as to why this appeal be not disposed of at the stage of admission itself. Despite valid service of the notice, the respondent no. 1 (owner of the vehicle) has chosen not to appear and contest the appeal. It is jointly submitted that the respondent no. 1 (O.P. No. 1 before the tribunal) did not even file written statement before the Tribunal. It is further submitted that the owner has not been saddled with any liability of payment of compensation amount to the claimant. The Insurance Company has been directed to pay the amount as awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, contention is that this appeal could be disposed of at this stage even in the absence of the owner. In the aforesaid circumstances now I proceed to dispose of this appeal at this stage itself.

2. By preferring this appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to be referred to as "the Act") the original claimants-appellants have challenged the amount of compensation awarded by 4th Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Muzaffarpur in claim case no. 115 of 2005. By the impugned judgment dated 11.12.2002 the claimants have been awarded a total sum of Rs. 50,000/- only by way of compensation for the death of Sheela Kumari, minor daughter of the claimants-appellants. According to the claimants, the compensation awarded is on lower side and hence needs to be enhanced.

3. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail such as how the accident occurred, whether there was negligence in driving the offending vehicle or who is liable for paying the compensation etc. for the reason that the findings recorded with regard to the aforesaid issues are not under challenge in this appeal.

4. In an accident which occurred on 25.5.2000, ten years old minor daughter of the claimants died giving rise to filing of claim petition by the claimants who are the parents of the deceased and who are appellants herein. The case was contested by the respondent-Insurance Company by filing written statement whereas the owner though initially filed objection refuting the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver, however, he did not file any written statement and had not contested. The claimants adduced evidence. The Claims Tribunal by the impugned award, though allowed the claim case, but awarded lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000/ only as just and proper compensation in this case. The Tribunal also awarded 12% interest as the Insurance Company, despite an order dated 17.9.2000 passed by the Claim Tribunal disposing of an application under Section 140 of the Act directing the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- by way of interim compensation, had not paid the same within time. Thus, the Tribunal awarded the aforesaid interest from the date of filing of the application till realisation of the amount.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that while deciding the compensation amount the learned Tribunal has erroneously found lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000/- only as just and proper in case of death of child who was a non-earning member. There has been non-consideration of the provision under Section 163(A) of the Act which is special provision for payment of compensation on structured formula basis and which was inserted by the Act 54 of 1994. He contends that the Tribunal should have awarded the compensation amount on structured formula basis which has been purposely introduced by the Legislature under Section 163(A). He contends that even in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Act, the Claims Tribunal was not precluded from calculating the compensation amount on the aforesaid structured formula. In support of his submission learned counsel relies